Taoism is anarchist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_religion#Taoism
Is this true?

Are taoism and anarchism compatible?

 

I think they are compatible.

 

Yeah, i haven't run across anything to suggest that they are not.

The more i read about taoism the cooler it seems.

Still need some more education on the subject though.

As you can maybe tell, i'm kinda "faith searching" if that makes sense...

 

Yes it makes perfect sense.

If you're looking into spiritual philosophies which have a connection with anarchism, I'd recommend checking out the work of Aleister Crowley (who, incidentally, produced his own Tao Te Ching translation).

 

thanx!

 

'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'. -- Crowley's 'Book of the Law'.

 

I've heard/read that several places.

I thought that was wiccan or gnostic.

I'll have to see if Crowley is available at my library(i hate online texts and i try not to buy), i'm sure if he isn't they could order it for me.

 

Some say the wiccan rede -'if it harm none, do what you will' is derived from Crowley via Gerald Gardener.
As for Crowleys works - hard to say where to begin. Although you don't like online texts, you could check out http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/index.html

Some short and easily read stuff there as well as more complex works.

 

I'll check it out.

I'm not opposed to online texts really (you can't get cheaper than free), i just like the feel of a book, plus i'm the type that likes to pour over a text on lunch break, in the tub, and so on...

thanks for the info.

 

Probably the most Anarchist-friendly of 'religions' are Taoism and Buddhism, though personally I feel neither should be treated as religions (I dont feel the religion of buddhism that we see today is what the buddha actually taught)...Since Zen Buddhism is a mix of mostly buddhist but partly taoist ideas i'd say zen buddhism is probably the most anarchist friendly spiritual tradition out there...The zen tradition generally shuns the idea of relying on scriptures and the very limited capabilities of the intellect. Personal experience counts for everything in Zen, everything else is just a guide at best. Zen Buddhist schools are sometimes described as a 'pure meditation' or 'mind only' tradition because of this. You do a retreat at a zen centre you can expect to focus heavily on hours of meditation every day.



Zen Anarchism

Compassion, for a Buddhist, springs from a fundamental selflessness. Compassion for humanity as a whole is what inspires the Buddhist towards activism; however, most, if not all, political groups tend to go against the Eightfold Path that steers Buddhist thought and action. Thus, anarchism, lacking a rigid ideological structure and dogmas, is seen as easily applicable for Buddhists.[2]

Those who have seen the conjunction of anarchism and Buddhism (in various ways) arguably include Edward Carpenter, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Lala Hardayal Liu Shipei, John Cage, Kenneth Rexroth, Allen Ginsberg, Diane di Prima, Gary Snyder, Jackson MacLow, Peter Lamborn Wilson, John Moore, Kerry Thornley, Max Cafard, William Batchelder Greene, as well as the pro-Situationist Ken Knabb and others[citation needed]. The foremost anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin saw primitive Buddhist communities as embodying the principle of mutual aid,[3] and Matthew Turner noted that some Buddhist priests were involved in the anarchist movement in Japan in the early part of the 20th century.

Eisai (明菴栄西), the founder of Rinzai school in Japan held quite a different view as regards the state as shown in Ko-zen-go-koku-ron ('The Protection of the State by the Propagation of Zen'). This, however, has not prevented the promotion of [Zen Anarchism] as "whatever you make it" or of [Anarchists] as "scholar warriors" with little reference to Zen Buddhism itself, but rather promoting a literary and psychological view rooted in Japanese militaristic tradition.

http://www.answers.com/topic/buddhist-anarchism

 

How anarchic is Zen in practical terms? - the organization of Zen monastaries is heirarchical in structure. There are masters who must be obeyed.


Other forms of Buddhism are even less so.

In fact, none of the old established religions are really anarchistic.

 

You know my position on these matters now surely?

It's very practical to practice meditation and use the eightfold noble path as a guide and do this without belonging to a zen organisation and obeying gurus...You don't even have to call yourself a buddhist to practice buddhist meditation.

Read some of the many writings from the authors of the beatnik movement and you'll maybe come round to seeing this...There is a long and rich history of a mixture of buddhism (especially zen) and anarchism during 50-70's.

You've only chosen to focus on the orgainisation of heirarchial monastaries as the religion based around buddhas teachings. I agree with you , religious buddhism is heirarchal and authoritarian, Tibetan buddhism especially so..But there are many interpretations of buddhas teachings, not all religious at all (e.g buddhism without beliefs by Stephen Batchelor, an existentialist take on it). If we stay focused on the teachings I think we could see a pretty convincing argument emerging with some simalarities between some of buddhas teachings and anarchist ideas...A few; "don't worship me as an idol", "Look for the meaning behind the words", "Test everything I say out for yourself" (these aren't exact quotes but the general jist is the same).

I think my argument is quite convincing if you were to read my post in the buddhism forum, my own little take on buddha and his teachings.

 

If you have your own version of Buddhism or any other path, then that's a different thing.
But if you say 'Zen' then people automatically think not of Kerouac etc but Japanese Zen monastaries - many of which are little more than boarding schools.
Worth noting perhaps that among the beats, Kerouac eneded up a hopeless catholic drunk, and Ginsberg became involved with Tibetan Buddhism. IMO the only one who took things to another level was William Burroughs.

Anyway, I'd better put in my disclaimer here, and tell you that actually, I'm not really an anarchist anyway - I doubt that the human race is ready for it. Maybe in the future, but it would mean chaos if all restraint and authority were taken away at the moment. If you ask me what is my political allegiance, I'd say to a kind of green caring capitalism.

The quotes from Buddha which you give have nothing at all to do with anarchy as a political ideology - they're more about taking 'religion' from the realm of 'belief' into that of direct experience. The injunction not to worship idols could be taken from the pages of the old testament.

 

Similarites but not compleatly the same.

Anarchist struglle for change, while a taoist would sit back and let it all happen onits own.

A true anarchist society, if there ever was one would be a very taoist place though.


so taoism and anarchy are close, but a Taoist and an Anarchist are far form each other.

 

Of course they have something to do with anarchism as an ideology...Why wouldn't they? Can you argue why they wouldn't?

I dont follow what you are saying here; "they're more about taking 'religion' from the realm of 'belief' into that of direct experience."

So you are saying people aren't allowed to have their own interpretations of religious/spiritual/philosophical ideas?...Throughout your posts on hipforums i've noticed this. You can't seem to accept that people can interpret religions in their own way. I have no clue why you think this. You seem to have this all or nothing attitude. Like if someone comes along and has their own view on what a religious teaching means that is different to the majority view then it's invalid and isn't real *insert religion or ism here* and can't be argued...It's like "oh, well thats not real so-so ism that'sjust your interpretation of it, real so-so ism is evil"...It's like you refuse point blank to see it in any other light than a negative light...Like you never really seem to want to focus on the actual philosophies of teachings rather what these teachings have become today as religions (and always negative)...Sorry if i'm coming across as rude or offensive but thats the way it seems and I dont get it.

 

Each person gives their own view - I'm simply giving my view. I don't seek to dictate to anyone how they should understand religion.

If you want only agreement, then I doubt you'll get that here or anywhere else on every occaision.

On the idol worship question, like it or not, it is banned in the OT. I can't see that the Buddhist ban is any more 'anarchic' in spirit than the jewish one.

Worship of a thing outside oneself is an indirect approach to the inner spirit, hence in my view the ban on idols is meant to make people see that the truth doesn't reside in a block of stone or wood, and turn them from external rituals etc which have no real benefit. In many eastern countries though, Buddha images are in fact worshipped just like idols.

What are the 'original ' techings of Buddhism which I misconstrue to such an extent? The Pali Cannon? Or what?
I don't have the least objection to anyone pursuing what ever path they want - if it's a personal version of Buddhism or Taoism or whatever. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. Trouble is if you insist on using the buddhist label, people will assime it is Buddhism you mean, not some derivative of your own, and in my view, Buddhism, like all the other trad religions is deeply flawed. 'Test everything out for yourself' has always been my philosophy. If it has led me to certain conclusions after 30 odd years, that's just the result of acting in that way.
I assure you I have no personal axe to grind with you. Generally, you are among the more intelligent members of this forum judging from your posts.

 

I try to read Taoist texts looking more for a "gut feeling" than looking for memorable verses, statements to argue, or dogma to quote. That said, while I think that a perfect Taoist world might be anarchistic, I don't think Taoism promotes anarchy on any but a personal level ... but that's just my take on it. Considering that the term "sage" often means "ruler", there's too many comments on what a sage should or should not do to make me think that Lao-tzu was advocating the dissolution of government - on the contrary, he seems to me to be advocating limited, skillful, and compassionate governance.

 

How aboiut Zenarchy and discordianism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenarchy

 

Havent read the link yet but the general idea sounds appealling.

If only more people realised any sort of progress towards that kind of society depends entirely on people finding peace and clarity within themselves rather than focusing there energies on trying to change the external conditions (e.g politics), then I think we'd finally start to get some where...

Revolution from within so to speak...Its the only way.

 

Taoism is anarchist?


Why not.

Great Tao is chaotic, and yet self-organizes.